Webkit can be seen as a mark against them and FOSS actually.
They took a good, existing GPL engine, forked it without any discussion with the existing active developers, held off on releasing their source as long as they could, and then resisted any cooperation in trying to merge Webkit and KHTML back into each other.
I'm not claiming that he is forcing people. I'm saying his statements are zealotry, and that I don't agree with them.
I've never claimed anything otherwise that these are merely statements Stallman is making. I am however allowed to disagree with his statements.
And the only reason I even care about his opinions is that he is very visible. His statements make a splash and gather attention. He has gone out of his way to try and use his stature to sway people like Mozilla. Thankfully, they haven't listened. But the fact remains that he wants to take away my rights, and is willing to try and do so.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't be concerned that someone is trying to take away your rights until they are successful in doing so?
I was expecting negative moderation for saying in general I disagree with Stallman's statements. People don't understand that moderation does not have a "-1 I Disagree With You" option.
Saying I agree with him on this particular issue apparently warrants a "-1 Troll". That is fantastic!
Telling me I'm not allowed to use software that is legal because he doesn't agree with the idealogy of closed-source software is a restriction that I can not accept.
And yet he says that if I don't close myself of to choice, then I'm not "free".
Removing freedom does not make me "free". I really don't think he understands what that word means, despite being a stickler for semantics.
And yet he has criticizes "lesser" licenses as not being "free" because they don't protect his ideals. He criticizes distros that give users the choice of "free" and "non-free" drivers. He criticizes Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions.
The GPLv3 adds additional restrictions and wanders into territory with hardware that I don't think should belong in a software license.
If you have to preface your comment with sideways plea to the moderators to mod you up, then you are already on shaky ground. Next time out, just say what you mean - consequences be damned.
My intention was to state, I don't care how you mod this, I'm going to say it anyway. But your concern is noted.
... the idea of free software is not to appease to the suits.
That's not what I'm saying. But the adoption of software in the enterprise is crucial. At the end of the day, people who build their own PCs rarely purchase Windows licenses. People who buy a computer from Dell and then later install Linux don't affect Microsoft that much in the end.
Microsoft certainly focuses primarily on the enterprise environment. If FOSS is going to change the world, it needs to make more inroads in enterprise environments.
You're thinking like a developer. Not an end user.
I hate to repeat my same response to everyone, but Stallman has called to remove rights from users as well. He blasts distros that include, or even allow users to install "non-free" software. He blasts Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions. He said multiple times that users must use 100% "free" software, or they are not free at all.
The GPL doesn't demand this, or I wouldn't use any GPL software. But he has spoken like a zealot who wants to remove my freedoms as a user.
So even from a user's perspective, Stallman again wants to remove my rights to further his. Again, this can be compared to DRM.
Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful.
So when he attacks Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions, and he berates them repeatedly, saying they should remove choice from users, who exactly here is he respecting?
He is saying Mozilla shouldn't have the right to allow third party extensions that aren't GPL, and I shouldn't have that right as a user to make the decision on which software to run.
Repeatedly over the years he has said you run 100% "free" software, or you aren't free. That sure sounds like zealotry that removes choice from the user.
What about Stallman saying distros shouldn't distribute "non-free" packages, or saying Mozilla must release a browser that stops users from installing "non-free" extensions.
He is telling me as a user that I don't have the right to choose which software I want to run.
In the case of Looking Glass and Origin, they got bought out because they were on the brink of financial ruin. And in both cases, the studios put out fantastic games that fans love, were critically acclaimed, but for some reason didn't sell. Yet everyone seems to have played their games.
I understand the DRM and GPL offer very differing sets of restrictions, but the point is that they are both a series of restrictions aimed at protecting the code/creation of the creator. Stallman thinks creators don't have the right to protect their code with DRM because he doesn't like that set of restrictions.
He criticizes companies like Mozilla, because they allow users to install proprietary extensions that aren't GPL. He has said USERS shouldn't have the freedom to mix proprietary software with FOSS software. Removing the rights of users is no different from DRM.
I was discussing Stallman in general here. On this particular issue, he is correct.
And for the record, I don't think GPL is always correct, nor is BSD always correct. I think each developer has to decide how to protect their work with that they feel is right, or open it as much as they feel is right. As the copyright owner, they are entitled to that right.
What I take offense with is Stallman claiming that only the GPL is correct, and that a differing set of restrictions is not "free".
But that is what the GPL does. Stallman believes that there are certain freedoms that should be protected. Those freedoms are protected through a series of restrictions.
Most social contracts work on similar scenarios. We benefit in theory by joining in a society and having a government. That government creates laws and takes away rights. Those restrictions protect us in a sense. But no one can claim they have found the perfect balance of restrictions.
Which is not to say I hate the GPL. I support the GPLv2. Overall, I think it is a very good license. But there is inherent hypocrisy in blasting others for using restrictions to protect content from being copied, when he does the same thing. He lets users copy and distribute code, but developers can't simply take the code without contributing back. You may agree with that decision, but it is a restriction nonetheless. DRM is designed to protect the rights of the creator. The GPL is designed to protect the rights of the creator.
The GPLv3/TiVo fiasco is a fine example here. TiVo used OSS code. They released their modifications to the source code. They complied with the license. Hackers were modifying their boxes so they didn't have to pay for TiVo service. TiVo feels like you should pay for their service and tries to stop people from pirating the service for free.
Stallman claims that TiVo is in the wrong here, and claims this is a very simple black/white issue. So now, the GPLv3 has more restrictions than the GPLv2.
When trying to convince suits to implement OSS in the enterprise, they are terrified by what they read. They are worried that they don't understand the GPL, and that even by using the product for commercial use, they will violate the license. Or that their data itself also must be opened up.
As I try to assuage their fears and convince them that the GPL isn't evil, tech news sites are filled with a crazy looking Stallman blasting companies. It doesn't help the image of FOSS.
So companies like Looking Glass Studios and Origin didn't understand their market well enough?
Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it. The game was deemed a commercial failure, and I'm not sure we'll ever see another game like it, despite the fact that Penny Arcade called it simply the greatest PC game of all time, and most RPG lovers call it their favorite.
It might be an excuse used by management to cover a bad product in some cases, but piracy does affect game sales to an extent.
And when you don't pay to support products, you can't bitch when those products disappear.
I rarely agree with RMS these days (as I discuss in a post below) but I don't agree with typical piracy either. I've done it, but as I get older, I want to pay for products.
I see the game companies I loved as a kid all go out of business, each citing piracy as a primary reason their PC game sales dropped. Other companies just shifted to console development, where piracy is more difficult. If you don't pay to support a product, don't expect that product to exist forever. I also believe a creator deserves the right to be financially rewarded for their creations. Being able to just take that creation for free isn't a right.
I still download a few albums illegally, but if I like them, I usually buy them afterward. Certain artists, I just buy the albums directly.
The only "piracy" I outright support is on two issues.
1 - Preservation of abandonware. If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation. You can not charge to distribute another person's product. If the creator re-releases the product, you can no longer distribute it again for 5 years.
2 - The DCMA says I can't legally circumvent copyright protection, but sadly copyright protection often interferes with software working correctly. I use no-cd/no-dvd patches on every game I own, and try to strip DRM from all software that I can, because I want the software to work correctly.
Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth.
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits. He goes after Linus, Mozilla and Google, never realizing who his friends are in the FOSS world. He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
Except RMS claims DRM is evil, and the GPL to be some holy mandate.
True freedom is public domain. Public domain certainly doesn't protect your code from being copied or stolen. Each developer has to make the decision themselves how to restrict usage of their creation. RMS can't claim that his list of restrictions is the only acceptable set of restrictions.
In all fairness I believe both HP and Dell get motherboards and laptops made from Foxconn as well. But certainly Apple's business practices are less than stellar. For every evil business practice we hate Microsoft for, usually Apple follows the same practice and somehow gets a pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Webkit can be seen as a mark against them and FOSS actually.
They took a good, existing GPL engine, forked it without any discussion with the existing active developers, held off on releasing their source as long as they could, and then resisted any cooperation in trying to merge Webkit and KHTML back into each other.
Arguably, software companies would argue that is what they do now. They are licensing a copy to you. They don't want to suggest you own anything.
I'm not claiming that he is forcing people. I'm saying his statements are zealotry, and that I don't agree with them.
I've never claimed anything otherwise that these are merely statements Stallman is making. I am however allowed to disagree with his statements.
And the only reason I even care about his opinions is that he is very visible. His statements make a splash and gather attention. He has gone out of his way to try and use his stature to sway people like Mozilla. Thankfully, they haven't listened. But the fact remains that he wants to take away my rights, and is willing to try and do so.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't be concerned that someone is trying to take away your rights until they are successful in doing so?
Or setup a bash alias in a matter of seconds.
You're posting AC and calling me out on trolling?
A troll wouldn't praise Stallman for positive contributions. A troll wouldn't say that Stallman is correct in this specific instance (which he is).
I've made level-headed logical statements. I haven't made personal attacks at any posters here. And I haven't responded to bait to incite arguments.
Where is there any indication here that I'm trolling?
I was responding to a parent post that says it has been repeatedly proven that Stallman is always right.
I was calling to see that proof.
I was expecting negative moderation for saying in general I disagree with Stallman's statements. People don't understand that moderation does not have a "-1 I Disagree With You" option.
Saying I agree with him on this particular issue apparently warrants a "-1 Troll". That is fantastic!
Telling me I'm not allowed to use software that is legal because he doesn't agree with the idealogy of closed-source software is a restriction that I can not accept.
And yet he says that if I don't close myself of to choice, then I'm not "free".
Removing freedom does not make me "free". I really don't think he understands what that word means, despite being a stickler for semantics.
My beef is simple. He makes statements that hurt the image of the FOSS community.
When he tries to convince Mozilla to restrict users' rights, whether or not he succeeds, it is still his goal to restrict users' rights.
You're honestly saying you don't understand why I would have a beef with that?
I'm not sure how I can be more clear.
And yet any time I have done it, I have been modded down.
Frankly, I don't care. I'm willing to burn the karma to express my opinion. I don't let moderation color my opinions.
And yet he has criticizes "lesser" licenses as not being "free" because they don't protect his ideals. He criticizes distros that give users the choice of "free" and "non-free" drivers. He criticizes Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions.
The GPLv3 adds additional restrictions and wanders into territory with hardware that I don't think should belong in a software license.
If you have to preface your comment with sideways plea to the moderators to mod you up, then you are already on shaky ground. Next time out, just say what you mean - consequences be damned.
My intention was to state, I don't care how you mod this, I'm going to say it anyway. But your concern is noted.
... the idea of free software is not to appease to the suits.
That's not what I'm saying. But the adoption of software in the enterprise is crucial. At the end of the day, people who build their own PCs rarely purchase Windows licenses. People who buy a computer from Dell and then later install Linux don't affect Microsoft that much in the end.
Microsoft certainly focuses primarily on the enterprise environment. If FOSS is going to change the world, it needs to make more inroads in enterprise environments.
You're thinking like a developer. Not an end user.
I hate to repeat my same response to everyone, but Stallman has called to remove rights from users as well. He blasts distros that include, or even allow users to install "non-free" software. He blasts Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions. He said multiple times that users must use 100% "free" software, or they are not free at all.
The GPL doesn't demand this, or I wouldn't use any GPL software. But he has spoken like a zealot who wants to remove my freedoms as a user.
So even from a user's perspective, Stallman again wants to remove my rights to further his. Again, this can be compared to DRM.
Stallman respects your choice as long as it is lawful.
So when he attacks Mozilla for allowing users to install "non-free" extensions, and he berates them repeatedly, saying they should remove choice from users, who exactly here is he respecting?
He is saying Mozilla shouldn't have the right to allow third party extensions that aren't GPL, and I shouldn't have that right as a user to make the decision on which software to run.
Repeatedly over the years he has said you run 100% "free" software, or you aren't free. That sure sounds like zealotry that removes choice from the user.
What about Stallman saying distros shouldn't distribute "non-free" packages, or saying Mozilla must release a browser that stops users from installing "non-free" extensions.
He is telling me as a user that I don't have the right to choose which software I want to run.
Is that better or worse than DRM?
I think those are fair addendums.
In the case of Looking Glass and Origin, they got bought out because they were on the brink of financial ruin. And in both cases, the studios put out fantastic games that fans love, were critically acclaimed, but for some reason didn't sell. Yet everyone seems to have played their games.
Black Isle was poorly managed by Interplay.
I understand the DRM and GPL offer very differing sets of restrictions, but the point is that they are both a series of restrictions aimed at protecting the code/creation of the creator. Stallman thinks creators don't have the right to protect their code with DRM because he doesn't like that set of restrictions.
He criticizes companies like Mozilla, because they allow users to install proprietary extensions that aren't GPL. He has said USERS shouldn't have the freedom to mix proprietary software with FOSS software. Removing the rights of users is no different from DRM.
I was discussing Stallman in general here. On this particular issue, he is correct.
And for the record, I don't think GPL is always correct, nor is BSD always correct. I think each developer has to decide how to protect their work with that they feel is right, or open it as much as they feel is right. As the copyright owner, they are entitled to that right.
What I take offense with is Stallman claiming that only the GPL is correct, and that a differing set of restrictions is not "free".
But that is what the GPL does. Stallman believes that there are certain freedoms that should be protected. Those freedoms are protected through a series of restrictions.
Most social contracts work on similar scenarios. We benefit in theory by joining in a society and having a government. That government creates laws and takes away rights. Those restrictions protect us in a sense. But no one can claim they have found the perfect balance of restrictions.
Which is not to say I hate the GPL. I support the GPLv2. Overall, I think it is a very good license. But there is inherent hypocrisy in blasting others for using restrictions to protect content from being copied, when he does the same thing. He lets users copy and distribute code, but developers can't simply take the code without contributing back. You may agree with that decision, but it is a restriction nonetheless. DRM is designed to protect the rights of the creator. The GPL is designed to protect the rights of the creator.
The GPLv3/TiVo fiasco is a fine example here. TiVo used OSS code. They released their modifications to the source code. They complied with the license. Hackers were modifying their boxes so they didn't have to pay for TiVo service. TiVo feels like you should pay for their service and tries to stop people from pirating the service for free.
Stallman claims that TiVo is in the wrong here, and claims this is a very simple black/white issue. So now, the GPLv3 has more restrictions than the GPLv2.
When trying to convince suits to implement OSS in the enterprise, they are terrified by what they read. They are worried that they don't understand the GPL, and that even by using the product for commercial use, they will violate the license. Or that their data itself also must be opened up.
As I try to assuage their fears and convince them that the GPL isn't evil, tech news sites are filled with a crazy looking Stallman blasting companies. It doesn't help the image of FOSS.
So he has been proven right that freedom is only defined by his growing list of restrictions?
I would love to see that proof.
I'd love to see it proved that Google, Mozilla, and Linux hurt free software as he has claimed.
I'd love to see it proved that the cloud is a joke.
I was commenting on Stallman in general. Above, I remark how I agree with him about the Pirate Party on this particular issue.
So companies like Looking Glass Studios and Origin didn't understand their market well enough?
Every RPG enthusiast I know has played Planescape: Torment. Yet none of them purchased it. The game was deemed a commercial failure, and I'm not sure we'll ever see another game like it, despite the fact that Penny Arcade called it simply the greatest PC game of all time, and most RPG lovers call it their favorite.
It might be an excuse used by management to cover a bad product in some cases, but piracy does affect game sales to an extent.
And when you don't pay to support products, you can't bitch when those products disappear.
I rarely agree with RMS these days (as I discuss in a post below) but I don't agree with typical piracy either. I've done it, but as I get older, I want to pay for products.
I see the game companies I loved as a kid all go out of business, each citing piracy as a primary reason their PC game sales dropped. Other companies just shifted to console development, where piracy is more difficult. If you don't pay to support a product, don't expect that product to exist forever. I also believe a creator deserves the right to be financially rewarded for their creations. Being able to just take that creation for free isn't a right.
I still download a few albums illegally, but if I like them, I usually buy them afterward. Certain artists, I just buy the albums directly.
The only "piracy" I outright support is on two issues.
1 - Preservation of abandonware. If no one is selling a product for 5 years, you should be able to distribute it for preservation. You can not charge to distribute another person's product. If the creator re-releases the product, you can no longer distribute it again for 5 years.
2 - The DCMA says I can't legally circumvent copyright protection, but sadly copyright protection often interferes with software working correctly. I use no-cd/no-dvd patches on every game I own, and try to strip DRM from all software that I can, because I want the software to work correctly.
Watch me burn some karma here, but this is the truth.
Stallman has contributed greatly over the years to free software. You can't change that. I appreciate his contributions.
But Stallman is a zealot who hurts the image of free software, making it difficult to sell the concept of free software to suits. He goes after Linus, Mozilla and Google, never realizing who his friends are in the FOSS world. He demands 100% compliance with his growing list of restrictions, or you aren't free.
Freedom is not a list of restrictions. In reality, he wants to remove rights, give you a list of restrictions, and do so to protect the interests of developers, protecting their code from being stolen. He considers this very important to him.
How is this really different from DRM? DRM restricts users to protect the developer/artist from having their property stolen.
Except RMS claims DRM is evil, and the GPL to be some holy mandate.
True freedom is public domain. Public domain certainly doesn't protect your code from being copied or stolen. Each developer has to make the decision themselves how to restrict usage of their creation. RMS can't claim that his list of restrictions is the only acceptable set of restrictions.
In all fairness I believe both HP and Dell get motherboards and laptops made from Foxconn as well. But certainly Apple's business practices are less than stellar. For every evil business practice we hate Microsoft for, usually Apple follows the same practice and somehow gets a pass.